On 3 February 2012 20:01, Carlos R. Mafra <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 at 5:13:32 +0800, Paul Harris wrote: > > My review: > > > > I prefer the simpler look, but you'll have to start again with the actual > > build of the website. > > > > It uses frames, which is very bad in terms of navigation (eg, you can't > > click the News button, and then bookmark the site, because the URL > doesn't > > change at the top), > > > > The frame sizing is all wrong on my Windows Chrome (buttons clipped etc), > > > > And if the window is shorter than the required height for the buttons > > frame, no scrollbar appears for scrolling down the buttons-frame. > > > > > > I tested the website on my little phone-browser, and each time I click a > > button, the content moves further to the right. > > > > > > So, I like the approach, but please switched to a frameless design. > > And, someone is going to have to put content up regularly (ie new News) > > Thanks for the review. > > I wanted to convey a minimalistic feeling to the page using my > minimalistic html knowledge (which I picked up while writing it). > And for that, using frames looked like a convenient solution to me. > > But now I read about frames being evil, I agree with that. > > At first I tried to use CSS frames -- and the dock, header and content > part of the site all have absolute CSS positioning (see title.css). > But what I could not do was to keep the dock and header only in one > place, and only change the content by clicking on the icons. > > My tip would be: generate new page with each click (thats the easiest to do), and do not use absolute CSS positioning. It means you get a logo or whatever stuck at the top of the window no matter how much you scroll. very annoying in some cases, especially with small (eg mobile phone) screens.
plus, absolute positioning used to be very flaky on older browsers. keep it simple, make it scroll like a normal page. after a few months, if you find it annoying, then fiddle with absolute positioning AND test on the dozen webbrowsers that exist. and yes, you should test with IE6. after all, some people with old windows computers might be looking at windowmaker as a life-extending option. and test with lynx and w3m I don't think you need to worry about Netscape3 or 4. i'd love to help, but am working late as it is :(
